Detention Centre Rules

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will conduct an open consultation on the draft detention centre rules before presenting them to Parliament.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government have recognised the importance of consultation throughout the process of drafting the detention centre rules. A re-drafted version of the rules has recently been distributed for further consultation, and we have revised the timetable for implementation of the rules in order to ensure that there is sufficient time to consider properly the comments that are received in response.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I appreciate that the Government have moved some distance from the original draft rules, thus tacitly admitting that they were modelled too closely on the Prison Rules. However, was sufficient time allowed for the further consultation following the distribution of the revised paper on 14th November, given that most of the recipients considered the deadline to be 1st December and responded accordingly? That included the Asylum Rights Campaign, whose letter was dated yesterday. Given the volume of suggested further amendments received in response to the circulation of the paper on 14th November, would it be useful to have an open round table of all the organisations involved so that these matters can be thrashed out before the draft rules are presented to Parliament?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is worth bearing in mind that consultation on the rules began as far back as January 1999 and has continued, both formally and informally, ever since. The consultation has been extensive: it has involved HMCIP, NGOs, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the Refugee Council, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture and a number of others. I take the noble Lord's point about the shortness of time in relation to a specific document. If we receive representations after the date when the formal consultation period ends, we shall continue to consider those. On the noble Lord's final point as to whether it would be advisable to have a round table, if we receive that representation from the consultation bodies we shall give it fair consideration.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, after more than three years of this Government being in office, asylum seekers in detention are still waiting for basic communications, full written reasons and medical assistance or at least information about medical facilities? Why has it taken so long for what he would describe as a "listening government" to act?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that those in detention centres do receive written reasons and explanations. They have access to a full range of legal advice and to medical advice. We try to make conditions in the detention centre estate as reasonable and humane as possible under the circumstances. These centres are essential; and those in government have a responsibility to ensure that they are maintained in good quality. For that reason there has also been considerable investment in improving the quality of the detention centre estate.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, how many people are currently in detention centres and what are their family profiles? For what kind of duration are they likely to remain in the centres?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have those precise statistics in front of me but I am happy to provide them in writing. The period of time spent in a detention centre depends on the complexity of the case. Our aim is to ensure that people spend as little time there as possible. The detention centre estate is enabling the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to turn over decisions much more quickly than was previously the case. I shall pick up the other points in correspondence with the noble Lord.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, will the Minister place a copy of his reply in the Library?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall be more than happy to do so.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, is it not ridiculous that, while one member of a family may be detained in a centre in the South of England, other family members may be dispersed over 200 miles away in the North? Is that not a wrong application of the dispersal policy?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, without having full knowledge of the circumstances of the case to which the noble Lord refers, it would be difficult and wrong of me to pass judgment at the Dispatch Box. There may be circumstances in which it is entirely appropriate. The general approach is usually to attempt to keep family groups together. If the noble Lord is concerned about the circumstances of dispersal in a particular case, I shall be happy to investigate it.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I believe that after the detention centre rules have been settled, operating standards will need to be developed in line with them. What is the time-scale for all this coming into practice?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not able to give an answer now on what is quite a complex matter. I shall correspond with the noble Lord.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am extremely grateful to him for his first Answer, and especially for his reference to the possibility of consultations with the organisations concerned? Will he allow me a week or 10 days in which to consult the organisations that have been involved in this process--especially the Asylum Rights Campaign--to see whether they would find such a meeting useful?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I always endeavour to be helpful to the noble Lord and others who are concerned about such matters. If the noble Lord would care to make contact with officials in my office, I shall consider what arrangements can be made.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, although the rules are clearly most important, can the Minister give the House an assurance that these centres will be used primarily to detain people who are about to be deported, and not as a random deterrent for asylum seekers generally?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, detention centres are not used in a random fashion; indeed, one of their principal purposes is to hold those who are facing removal in the very near future. The noble Lord will appreciate that many of the cases with which we have to deal are very complicated. Therefore, it is only right and proper that people are held while full investigations are made into their circumstances. I believe that that is as far as I can go on this point.

Firearms Register: Implementation

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the central register of all persons who hold, or who have applied for, a firearm or shotgun certificate which was required to be set up under Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 has not been set up and by what date it will be set up.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, time-scales for this project were recently reassessed because of the need to develop concurrently a link between the national DNA database and criminal records on the police national computer. I understand that the Police Information Technology Organisation, which is responsible for taking matters forward, has agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers that a combined approach is the best way of taking forward both proposals. Development work on the project has now started. The register is expected to be operational by February 2002.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Given that the object of the amendment to the Act was to prevent a repetition of tragedies such as Hungerford and Dunblane, does the noble Lord agree that it is disgraceful that the Home Office is only now--three years later--starting to do anything about the matter? Has the noble Lord taken note of the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place, chaired by his honourable friend Mr Robin Corbett, which said:
	"We are appalled that the national database of certificate holders ... is not yet in immediate prospect"?
	Further, does the noble Lord agree with the Select Committee when it says:
	"We regard this system, which will allow the swift and effective exchange of information on applications made for certificates between all police forces, as absolutely central to the safe and effective operation of the firearms licensing system."?
	Will the noble Lord put a bomb under the Home Office?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that it would be appropriate to put a bomb under the Home Office. However, the noble Lord makes an important point. He is, of course, to be congratulated on introducing this section of the legislation. Concern has been expressed about the delay, but it is our desire to get matters absolutely right. Obviously I am well aware of the correspondence entered into with Robin Corbett setting out the position as far as concerns the Section 39 amendment to the Act. Yes, we are well aware of the problem. But we are on the case and are beginning to ensure that matters are put right. I, too, share the noble Lord's view that the register is extremely important. However, it is important to bring it into line with the DNA register.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, in the light of that exchange, can the Minister confirm just who is running the country--is it the civil servants, or, indeed, is it the Ministers?

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hesitate to say that that is a fatuous question. However, it is apparent that we are the Government of the day; that we are responsible as a government; and that we take decisions and run the country.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I welcome the reply of my noble friend the Minister to the Question. Although local police forces are invaluable in policing local communities, does my noble friend agree that it is absolutely essential that intelligence is shared? Of course, we have the police national computer and the National Criminal Intelligence Service, but we are talking here of the type of information that needs to be commonly held. If is it not commonly held within police forces, it should be held nationally. I urge my noble friend to expedite this project with due haste.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I always listen most carefully to what my noble friend says on such matters. He is absolutely right. However, we also believe that it is right for us to have a combined development approach because that is the best practical solution to the problem of taking forward with minimal delay both the central register of certificate holders and the development of a link between the national DNA database and criminal records on the PNC. We believe that to be the right approach. I should add that that approach is supported by ACPO and other authorities within the police service.

Lord Monson: My Lords, there have been reports suggesting that the cost of setting up the central register will work out at something like six times the sum originally estimated. Can the Minister comment?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am unable to confirm whether or not that is the case. I do not recognise that estimate. However, I shall be happy to undertake further investigations and advise the noble Lord accordingly in due course.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister may know that I was the Home Office Minister when this legislation passed through the House. At that time, I gave an assurance in very good faith that this work would be undertaken speedily. Therefore, I feel dishonoured by what has happened. Nearly four years later, almost nothing has happened. A letter written to Robin Corbett only this month stated that some 1,400 person days would be needed to complete the work. In that case, if there were 10 people involved, it would be only 140 days--a mere four or five months. The work could have been completed in one year, certainly in two years; but here we are, almost four years later, in this situation. Can the Minister explain why it is only now that there is a sense of urgency in the Home Office?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is always a sense of urgency in the Home Office. I refute the suggestion that we have been negligent in our approach. The noble Baroness is well aware that the legislation was passed in 1997. Indeed, I pay tribute to her for her role in that process. However, I repeat the point that I made a few moments ago. We believe that there are advantages in a combined development. I am sure that most Members of your Lordships' House recognise the value of having that DNA link. It is very important, valuable and powerful technology. It will enhance crime prevention and improve the quality of public safety. Those are our paramount concerns.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble friend familiar with the recent research by the University of Durham which shows a 52 per cent growth in the replica gun market over the past two years? Does he agree that this is a worrying and dangerous trend, not least because replica guns these days look terrifyingly like the real thing, cause real problems for the police in fighting crime and also have the undesirable effect of introducing children at a young age to a gun culture? Will he consider an amendment to what I believe is the 1968 Firearms Act to outlaw these undesirable toys so that we fall in line with countries such as France, Belgium and Holland which have already done so?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Firearms Act already applies to replica firearms that can be readily converted to fire live ammunition or use of replica firearms to cause fear of unlawful violence. The Government understand the public concern about the misuse of replica firearms and are giving active consideration to whether further steps are needed to deal with them. We are in this respect grateful for the advice recently received from the Home Affairs Committee of another place and also from the Firearms Consultative Committee. Therefore we are giving active consideration to the very point that the noble Lord makes.

Lord Renton: My Lords, are village post offices able to provide firearms application forms to be filled in, or have people got to go to the police station?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that. I shall happily find out and advise the noble Lord.

Sierra Leone: Aid Policy

Baroness Rawlings: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their aid policy for Sierra Leone.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, our policy in Sierra Leone is to work to promote peace and security and to strengthen the democratic processes. This will lay the foundations for the sustainable long-term development that is needed to enable progress to be made towards meeting the international development targets. We shall continue to work closely with other government departments in the pursuit of these aims. We shall also continue to provide humanitarian support for the large number of people displaced by the conflict.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed Answer. In the DfID development report of April 2000 emphasis is placed on the continuing support of the security sector. According to the report, that started in June 1999. Clearly this past strategy has been a failure. In the light of that will the Minister tell the House what appraisal Her Majesty's Government have carried out and how this package has been reconstructed?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree that our programme in Sierra Leone has been a failure. We have worked long and hard to promote peace and stability not only in Sierra Leone but also in the region. With respect to our programme in Sierra Leone, we have made it clear that we shall focus on help with security, the budget, good governance and humanitarian relief. In that respect we have worked with the police services and the defence services to ensure that we promote security within Sierra Leone.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, given that many of the problems associated with Sierra Leone are due to the collapse of the governmental process, will the Minister give some examples of DfID's work in good governance?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are working to strengthen governance within Sierra Leone. For example, we support the establishment of an anti-corruption commission which is an initiative of the President of Sierra Leone. We are also taking forward work in preparation for next year's elections because in terms of establishing the long-term democratic process in Sierra Leone those elections will be extremely important.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I understand that the Government have spent some £35 million this year in Sierra Leone. How will this fund policy development in education, particularly primary education?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have committed £35 million to spend in Sierra Leone this year. We are also allocating money to humanitarian activities and have made contributions not only to UN managed programmes and projects but also to both international and local NGOs. As regards specific education projects, we have a project with Christian Aid which is aimed at the resumption of a quality primary education for children in Freetown. We also have a project, Conciliation Resources, to equip vulnerable, disaffected and marginalised youth with the skills and education needed to sustain meaningful livelihoods.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, in the light of the substantial military commitment that the security aspects of the aid programme to Sierra Leone involve, has the noble Baroness consulted her noble friend on the Front Bench about the direct effects of that substantial commitment on military overstretch, particularly given the Government's propensity--as we read in the newspapers recently in regard to the Middle East--to make further offers of British troops for peacekeeping purposes? In the light of our tendency to make those commitments, will that overstretch be in any way mitigated by an increase in the defence budget?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are in constant discussion across the departments that are engaged in work in Sierra Leone. Those departments are the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence and FCO. As the noble Viscount will be aware, the defence commitments in Sierra Leone involve training the Sierra Leone army. We think that it is important that that army is properly trained so that it is able to deal effectively with the rebels in Sierra Leone. On the specific matter of overstretch, the noble Viscount will be aware from comments of my noble friend Lady Symons in this House that this is constantly under review. In the Statement that my noble friend made to the House last month she made the position clear.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend advise your Lordships' House what measures the Government are taking to seek to promote not merely the kind of security about which she has just spoken but security for civilians as and when Sierra Leone emerges from this bloody conflict?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are working hard to reform and improve the effectiveness, for example, of the police in Sierra Leone. We are helping to improve public confidence in the police. We are also working to help to reintegrate ex-combatants. We recognise that in the rural areas this is a much slower process. That is partly the result of the history of the police being targeted by the rebels in rural areas. There are problems with access, but we shall continue to make progress on this matter.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the NGOs--I declare an interest as someone involved in an NGO--very much welcome the anti-corruption measure that she mentioned as it is most disappointing to raise funds and then find that they do not reach those who need help? Will that policy be applied throughout Africa rather than just in Sierra Leone?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, working to deal with corruption in different countries across the world is a key priority for us in terms of our development agenda. We shall want to learn the lessons from any anti-corruption commission that is established in Sierra Leone to see whether or not what we learn from Sierra Leone can be used in other countries.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, with regard to the civil society in Sierra Leone, what assistance have the Government given in particular to women's organisations? Have they considered, for instance, the work which is being done by Mrs Zainab Bangura?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, a key theme of our work in all the countries in which we work is to promote gender equality. I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the funding of specific women's organisations in Sierra Leone. I shall, of course, place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

Climate Conference, The Hague: Outcome

The Earl of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to reverse the failure of the recent climate conference at The Hague.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the failure of The Hague Conference is obviously deeply disappointing. All sides were committed to securing agreement but negotiators ultimately ran out of time on this extremely complex and important matter. It has already been agreed that the talks will resume next year, probably in May or June. The Government will continue to work with our EU partners and other countries to build on the progress made in the Hague and to ensure that an agreement is reached.

The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I was pleased to read today in the press that the Deputy Prime Minister will not be attending the European meeting of Ministers on 17th December, particularly as that falls on a Sunday. Will that meeting involve the American delegation and the other members who attended the conference at The Hague? Without their attendance, the meeting seems unlikely to achieve anything.
	Finally, does the Minister agree that in the light of recent events, the task of defending the UK's national interest at the forthcoming Nice conference will be that much more difficult?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl's question contains a number of misapprehensions. There is a European Environment Council on, I think, 18th and 19th December. That may be an appropriate point at which to discuss the issues arising from The Hague. But contacts with our EU partners are continuous. Progress may well be made before or at that point.
	On the role of the Deputy Prime Minister, the House should be aware that if it were not for the Deputy Prime Minister the progress that was made in bringing the American and EU positions closer together would not have occurred. We were very close to reaching an agreement. As regards timing, it was unfortunate that we did not get further. We now need to pick up the pieces on that and develop a closer approximation between the American/EU position and that of the group of 77. That will require a lot of diplomacy. It will not be solely in relation to the EU or any EU meeting.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the Deputy Prime Minister should be warmly congratulated on his tireless work, together with his Minister of State, in getting so close to an agreement, the truth remains that the position of the United States leaves much to be desired? I refer to the proportion of the crisis generated for which it is responsible and the minimum level of its readiness to respond.
	Can my noble friend assure us that whoever forms the new administration in the United States will have an early visit from a person at the most senior level--the Prime Minister would be ideal--to ensure that we win American commitment without which substantial progress will never be made?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is clear that the position of the United States is crucial to reaching agreement on these issues and in making serious progress. Emissions levels in the United States are one of the major causes of the current climate change problems. It is, therefore, important that the American political and business leadership take that seriously. Within the present Administration, we have serious recognition of that. For that reason America was prepared to move significantly in the latter stages of the discussion at The Hague from its somewhat intransigent original position. We welcome those moves. We believe that we can build on them. We hope that we can build on them, whoever is in the White House in January. It is noticeable that in American public and to some extent corporate opinion there is a positive move towards doing something about climate change. I hope that whoever is the political leader of America takes account of that and begins to lead on it.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister reassure us that, despite the failure at The Hague, the EU countries will persevere in their efforts to achieve the objectives they have already set themselves to deal with climate change and, indeed, intensify those efforts as an example to the rest of the world?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that I can give that commitment. I certainly assure the House that the UK Government are on course for meeting their commitment to the EU contribution towards Kyoto.
	However, there are some problems within Europe. When we castigate the United States, we also have to recognise that although in policy terms the EU is well in advance of the United States, many EU countries are not on course to achieve their commitments with regard to the EU bubble as a contribution to Kyoto. Only the UK and, to a large extent, Germany are on target.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one of the problems about the final agreement was that the United States proposed what were called forest sinks which would deal with some of the effects of emissions? Will the noble Lord promise that, while supporting the concept of forest sinks, Her Majesty's Government will ensure that that does not mean that monoculture of forests will replace the traditional rain and maritime forests of the world?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. The issue of sinks was important. The Americans started from the position of wanting to make a major contribution from afforestation within the United States and developed countries and also acquiring credit for planting afforestation largely within developing countries. They removed that latter point from their negotiating position towards the end, which was most beneficial, and became significantly more flexible on the former. Although maintenance of forests plays a role, it is important that positive measures are also taken to reduce emissions, and that the two are not seen as counter-poised.

Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be considered forthwith.
	Moved, That the Commons reason be considered forthwith.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT

[The page and line refer to HL Bill 48 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

130 After Clause 64, insert the following new clause--

TAX RELIEF ON POLITICAL DONATIONS.

After section 379 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (interpretation of sections 369 to 378) there shall be inserted--

"Tax relief on political donations.

379AA.--(1) Tax relief shall be available to an individual ("the donor") in accordance with this section on qualifying political donations made by him of up to £500 in any year of assessment.
	(2) A donation is a qualifying political donation for the purposes of this section if it is made to a registered political party (other than a minor party) and--
	(a) it takes the form of the payment of a sum of money,
	(b) it is not subject to a condition as to repayment,
	(c) it is not conditional on or associated with, or part of an arrangement involving, the acquisition of property by the political party, its members or accounting units, otherwise than by way of gift, from the donor or a person connected with him, and
	(d) the donor is a registered elector.
	(3) For the purposes of this section a political party is an eligible political party if--
	(a) it is a registered party within the meaning of section 22 of this Act other than a minor party, and
	(b) at the last general election preceding the donation in question--
	(i) two members of that party were elected to the House of Commons, or
	(ii) one member of that party was elected to the House of Commons and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.
	(4) If an individual makes a qualifying donation he shall be entitled, on making the payment, to deduct and retain out of it a sum equal to basic rate tax thereon.
	(5) Where a sum is deducted under subsection (4) above, the sum deducted shall be treated as income tax paid by the person to whom the payment is made.
	(6) Any person by whom a qualifying donation is received shall be entitled to recover from the Board, in accordance with regulations, an amount which by virtue of subsection (5) above is treated as income tax paid by him; and any amount so recovered shall be treated for the purposes of the Tax Acts in like manner as the qualifying political donation to which it relates.
	(7) The following provisions of the Taxes Management Act 1970, namely--
	(a) section 29(1)(c) (excessive relief) as it has effect apart from section 29(2) to (10) of that Act,
	(b) section 30 (tax paid in error, etc) apart from subsection (1B),
	(c) section 86 (interest), and
	(d) section 95 (incorrect return or accounts),
	shall apply in relation to an amount which is paid to any person by the Board as an amount recoverable in accordance with regulations made by virtue of subsection (6) above but to which that person is not entitled as if it were income tax which ought not to have been repaid and, where that amount was claimed by that person, as if it had been repaid as respects a chargeable period as a relief which was not due.
	(8) In the application of section 86 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 by virtue of section (7) above in relation to sums due and payable by virtue of an assessment made for the whole or part of a year of assessment ("the relevant year of assessment") under section 29(1)(c) or 30 of that Act, as applied by that subsection, the relevant date--
	(a) is 1st January in the relevant year of assessment in a case where the person falling within subsection (5) above has made a relevant interim claim; and
	(b) in any other case is the later of the following dates, that is to say--
	(i) 1st January in the relevant year of assessment; or
	(ii) the date of the making of the payment by the Board which gives rise to the assessment.
	(9) The Board may by regulations make provision--
	(a) for the purposes of any provision of this section which relates to any matter or thing to be specified by or done in accordance with regulations;
	(b) with respect to the furnishing of information by donors or recipients, including, in the case of recipients, the inspection of books, documents and other records on behalf of the Board; and
	(c) generally for giving effect to this section.
	(10) In this section--
	"financial year" in relation to any person, means a financial year of that person for the purposes of the relevant regulations;
	"interim claim" means an interim claim within the meaning of the relevant regulations;
	"relevant interim claim" means, in relation to an assessment made for a period coterminous with, or falling wholly within, a person's financial year, an interim claim made for a period falling wholly or partly within that financial year; and
	"the relevant regulations" means regulations made under subsection (9) above.
	(11) Section 839 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section to determine whether one person is connected with another."")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	130A Because it interferes with the public revenue, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 130A. The other place has disagreed with your Lordships' Amendment No. 130 because it interferes with the public revenue. It is not, therefore, a matter for this House. Taxation and tax relief are for the elected House alone to determine.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 130A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, since another place has relied on privilege, there is nothing further that can be done with the amendment. I simply express the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the matter carefully and will persuade himself by the time of the next Budget that it is appropriate to grant tax relief for the reasons which have been expressed clearly in debates in your Lordships' House.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It clearly would be right for this House to defer to the privilege of the Commons which it has claimed in this matter and not to insist on the amendment.
	At same time we believe that in recommending this tax relief the Neill committee was on to a good point. It should happen. However, the issue was discussed in our earlier debates. I do not need to repeat the arguments except to say that we continue to support the policy. We hope that in a more appropriate Bill, perhaps a finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look favourably on the proposals of the Neill committee.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the Commons reason is expressed very widely and, I think, unusually, but they are undoubtedly entitled to insist on their financial privilege in this matter. I therefore respectfully agree with what the two noble Lords have said.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of noble Lords in this brief debate. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the Government set out their priorities in the spending review and the Pre-Budget Report. Noble Lords are welcome at any time to make representations on particular matters of this nature. There is nothing else that can be properly said on the issue at this stage.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure that the House is aware that we shall now have to adjourn during pleasure to await the Commons message on the Disqualifications Bill. That is likely to arrive at about four o'clock, so I propose to adjourn until then. We will then resume to receive the message and adjourn again for about 30 minutes to enable any amendments to be tabled. We shall then continue with the consideration of the Commons amendments. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 4 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 11.41 a.m. to 4 p.m.]

Lord Carter: My Lords, I understand that we have to wait to receive a Message from the Commons. The advice is that we should now adjourn during pleasure until 4.30 p.m., by which time we shall be certain to have received a message. We shall then adjourn again for only 10 minutes in order to allow an amendment to be tabled. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 4.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 4.1 to 4.30 p.m.]

Message from the Commons

A Message was brought from the Commons, That they agree to certain of the amendments made by your Lordships to the Disqualifications Bill without amendment and they disagree to the remaining amendment, for which they assign a reason.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 4.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 4.31 to 4.40 p.m.]

Disqualifications Bill

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons reason be now considered.--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND MANUSCRIPT MOTION TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON

[The page and line refer to HL Bill 25 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

1 Clause 1, leave out Clause 1
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	1A Because it is appropriate to remove the disqualification for membership of the House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly of members of the legislature of Ireland (the Oireachtas).

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
	The Disqualifications Bill is back before this House today following the decision by the other place to reject your Lordships' amendment to leave out Clause 1. The Government resisted this amendment in the other place and were supported in that position by 338 votes to 129--a large and conclusive majority.
	The elected Chamber of this Parliament has now clearly indicated its wishes with regard to this Bill and I hope that your Lordships will recognise the legitimacy of that view and respect the wishes of the House on which this Bill will have a bearing. Before asking this House to indicate whether or not it intends to insist on its original amendment, I should like to use this opportunity once again, briefly, to set out the Government's position in relation to the Bill in the hope that at this late stage, now that the other place has given its opinion on the matter, your Lordships will be persuaded against insisting on the original amendment to remove Clause 1 from the Bill.
	Perhaps I can take head on two arguments made in earlier debates. One is that this Bill is not wanted by anyone other than Sinn Fein; the other is the claim that we are engaged in an unjustified and discreditable attempt to appease republicans who have yet to abandon violence unequivocally.
	I take the first argument. The Bill has the support of the SDLP which has courageously stood up for constitutional nationalist principles for many years. I know that my noble friend Lord Fitt takes a different view of the matter from his former colleagues in the SDLP. But that is their considered position and it is right that the House should give due weight to it.
	The Bill also has the wholehearted support of the Irish Government. I urge the House to reflect on the contribution which successive Dublin governments have made to the peace process over the past few years. We have our separate interests. There have been and will continue to be occasions when we disagree. But when we can proceed together on an agreed basis, we should do so, for that is in the best interests of sustaining confidence in the political process, not only in Northern Ireland, but also throughout these islands. That relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom was proved in the negotiations which resulted in the Belfast agreement. It was the British and Irish Governments working together with the parties which made it possible to reach agreement. Throughout the difficult process which led to that agreement, and subsequently when we experienced setbacks in the full implementation of the agreement, the Irish Government were key players in bringing the political process back on track, sometimes at substantial cost and in the face of personal tragedy.
	Our relationship with Ireland has been strengthened not only by the Belfast agreement, but also by the British-Irish agreement which replaced the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Under the new agreement, the Irish Government fulfilled their commitment to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, a move supported by 94 per cent of their electorate.
	This Bill also has the support of a number of the smaller parties in Northern Ireland, including the Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition, neither of which could, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as fellow travellers of the republican movement. The crucial point is that it reflects the Government's view of what, in a modest way, will help to break down some of the old barriers that were necessary for as long as the Republic maintained a constitutional claim to a part of the United Kingdom but are no longer justified in the light of the new situation created by the Belfast agreement.
	I turn to the second argument that this is somehow part of an appeasement process. I recognise that assurances from me to the contrary will fail to persuade those noble Lords who are disposed to believe the worst. However, I ask how it can possibly be regarded as appeasement of the paramilitaries when the effect of the Bill is to increase the opportunity to pursue legitimate political objectives through properly elected legislative bodies. If someone is able to persuade the electorate of a constituency in Northern Ireland and of a constituency in the Republic to send him or her to represent them both in Dublin and Belfast, or in Dublin and London, or any combination of the three, do we need to prohibit that by law? That is the effect of the restrictions in the present Disqualifications Act. In the Government's view, those restrictions no longer serve any useful purpose.
	Democracy is not something about which we need to be frugal or grudging in these islands. It is for the people to decide who they wish to represent them in their elected assemblies and parliaments. Let us give them the most generous possible choice and place no unnecessary barriers in their way. In a modest way, this Bill increases that choice. The House of Commons has confirmed that it wishes the old restrictions on its membership and that of the Northern Ireland Assembly to be lifted. I urge the House not to insist on an amendment which, by completely undermining this Bill, would be contrary to the new spirit of British/Irish relations, which we should all be committed to nurturing.
	I should like to mention that the Liberal Democrats have consistently supported this Bill, believing it to represent a modest contribution to the peace process. We are grateful for that. They have made points about the process by which the Bill has progressed through Parliament. This is not the place to defend that process. However, we believe that the benefit of the Bill is worthwhile.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numberered 1A.--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON NO. 1A

Lord Cope of Berkeley: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered No. 1A, leave out "not".

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1B standing in my name to insist on your Lordships' Amendment No. 1.
	It remains our view that this is a dangerous Bill for Northern Ireland and for the rest of the United Kingdom. That is well known to your Lordships. I do not propose again to detail all the arguments, although I shall touch on some points. It was made clear by the noble and learned Lord that the question for consideration today is not only about the dangers of the Bill but also about your Lordships' House insisting on the amendment. Whatever may happen in the future, this House reflects the decisions taken last year on its membership. Its powers are settled in the Parliament Acts. There is no doubt that we are legally entitled to insist on this amendment. Whether or not we should do so is a matter of judgment. That is partly a question of the effects of the Bill but also a question of the nature of the Bill. There can be no question but that this is a constitutional Bill.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the question as to who sits in the legislature of any country is clearly a constitutional matter of the highest importance. I do not profess to be an expert on international constitutions, but I have never heard of a country with a written constitution that does not, among other things, fix who sits in the legislature. It is also a normal feature of written constitutions to fix more elaborate methods than mere legislation to ensure wide support for changing the constitution--so-called entrenched provisions. For example, the Irish constitution provides, among other things, for a referendum on a change to the constitution.
	Presumably, the House of Commons also agrees that this is a constitutional measure, as the Committee stage was held on the Floor of the House and not in the usual Standing Committee. Many people believe that this House has a special responsibility in respect of constitutional Bills. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said so only yesterday in another debate.
	Furthermore, the Bill was not in the Government's manifesto--

Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not believe that I said that. I recollect that the point I sought to make was that the only circumstance in which it would ever be justifiable for this House to insist on an amendment would be one which raised a grave constitutional issue. I do not believe I ever said that I thought this House had a special responsibility for constitutional matters.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have the words in front of me. The noble Lord spoke about a major constitutional issue being at stake. I hope that I did not misrepresent him--if I did, I apologise. However, he certainly made the point that there was a difference between some constitutional issues and other issues when it came to the use of our powers. I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating his agreement to that.
	Apart from that, the Bill was not in the Government's manifesto. It was not in the Belfast agreement which on other occasions we have been told to follow word by word, almost slavishly. It was not in the British/Irish agreement. It was not even in the Queen's speech last year. It was introduced as a matter of great urgency--so it was said at the time--into another place, all stages being taken on 24th and 25th January. It was not discussed again by another place until a few hours ago, when it was discussed for three hours under a guillotine.
	In those circumstances, we are not only entitled to insist on our amendment but have a duty to judge carefully whether the Bill is in the national interest. It is our view that it is not. If the Bill were carried, the principal beneficiary would be Sinn Fein/IRA. Few people, if any, will want to sit in both Parliaments at the same time. However, Sinn Fein would be able to try to have people elected simultaneously for both United Kingdom constituencies and Dail seats, not to take advantage of the seat in Westminster--we know that it spurns doing so--but in order to claim to represent parts of the United Kingdom in Dublin in the Dail. That would be most damaging to the United Kingdom.
	The argument also used by Ministers concerns the peace process, good will and so forth. The right honourable Mr Howarth, the Northern Ireland Minister, speaking in the debate in another place not long ago, referred to the warmth of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. He indicated that it was like the Commonwealth, which it left 50 years ago, and greater than with any other European Union country, even those which have been our allies in peace and in war. Even the Prime Minister yesterday referred to the Commonwealth analogy in reply to the right honourable Mr Trimble.
	Therefore, I make no apology for repeating that the Commonwealth comparison is rubbish. No Commonwealth MP has ever sat in Westminster at the same time and in practice none will ever do so. The Minister gave up using that argument long ago in our debates in this House; and quite rightly, too, because it was exploded. I am shocked that no one has told the Prime Minister what a bogus argument it is.
	The fact is that no one can legally represent two different constituencies at the same time in the House of Commons. No one can sit in this House and in another place. This Bill provides a right for Irish citizens to represent two different constituencies in two different sovereign Parliaments whose national interests sometimes differ. The noble and learned Lord said a few moments ago that we had our separate interests. Of course we want good relations with the Republic and its government, but we have our separate interests. The two Parliaments also have separate interests, and no man can serve two masters.
	I emphasise "Irish citizens" because no one who is not an Irish citizen can sit in the Dail. As far as I am aware, there is no proposal by the Irish Government or anybody else to alter the Republic's constitution to allow us to sit in the Irish Parliament. There is no reciprocation at all from the Irish Government or Sinn Fein. All that the Irish Government have said this week while this matter has been coming to the boil is that they will not support Catholics joining the Northern Ireland police service. There is not much good will in that. We believe that this is a one-sided Bill in which we should not acquiesce.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A, leave out "not".--(Lord Cope of Berkeley.)

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment. By now all noble Lords are aware of the issues which surround the Bill. It is yet to be confirmed to me, and to the satisfaction of others in this House, who exactly demanded this shameful measure of constitutional reform. However, one does not require the deductive skills of Sherlock Holmes or Inspector Morse to infer from the consequences of this Bill who demanded it: plainly and simply, it was Sinn Fein. That is the only party to benefit from the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said, this measure is not part of the Belfast agreement which is the basis for constitutional reform in Northern Ireland. An agreement that we cannot cherry pick appears to be the very document to which the Government can attach other measures.
	In another place this very afternoon the Minister defended this measure on the grounds that it was consistent with the Belfast agreement. I should like to correct that error. The Belfast agreement is founded on consensus which clearly this measure does not have. A belated and half-hearted statement of support by the SDLP should not be interpreted as anything other than that. It is not an indication that that party supported this measure at the outset, merely that the SDLP was pressurised either by the Government or Sinn Fein to make some kind of statement of support.
	There is no support by parliamentarians in the Republic of Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has told this House on more than one occasion of the lack of support by parliamentarians in the Republic of Ireland. No reciprocal measure is to be introduced in the Republic of Ireland. Should Members of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland be able to sit in another place, or in the Northern Ireland Assembly, if Members of the United Kingdom legislature are unable to sit in Dublin? That is not correct.
	When I refer to Members of the United Kingdom legislature I mean all of them; but only MPs from Northern Ireland constituencies, not from the mainland, may be permitted to sit in the Irish Parliament. Is the Minister aware that the Government of the Republic of Ireland, even if they wanted to reciprocate--I believe that they do not--are unable to do so without reforming their constitution? Further, they cannot do that without a referendum on an amendment to the Republic's constitution. Indeed, I believe that the Irish Government are not minded to amend their constitution. But then the Irish Government are not permitting Sinn Fein/IRA to dictate to them on this issue of constitutional reform.
	Here in the United Kingdom we can amend our constitution without a referendum. We can amend our constitution by passing a Bill such as this.
	We are under a duty to consider carefully the Bill as it amends our constitution. But we are not under a duty to please and placate Sinn Fein at every juncture. If anything, the Disqualifications Bill should actually disqualify persons from membership of another sovereign parliament and ours. It should remove the anomaly of the Commonwealth parliaments, not add to that anomaly by including the Republic of Ireland.
	If countries with which the United Kingdom has special relationships are to receive favourable amendments to our constitution, which will be next? The United States, with which we have a special relationship, left the Commonwealth in 1776. Will it be next to have its disqualification removed? Or is that conditional on Sinn Fein demanding it? I urge and plead with noble Lords to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and bury this constitutional monstrosity.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, as has been apparent from the previous two contributions, those noble Lords opposed to Amendment No. 1 tend to couch their strict constructionalist rather black-lettered legalistic arguments in somewhat apocalyptic terms with warnings of dire consequences. It is their view that not only the hallowed canons of constitutionalism are being contravened, but, worse, the floodgates are being opened to the most rampant forms of Irish nationalism. Such argumentation is all rather too far-fetched.
	It is that sort of mindset which ferments disunity within the ranks of unionism and inhibits the development of a more positive and modern interpretation of unionism that is congruent with contemporary realities and attempts to make the Belfast agreement work.
	Those noble Lords who support Amendment No. 1 believe that positive benefits may ensue from having one or two representatives who hold seats in Dublin, London or Belfast. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland on Report. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan said, we should seek reciprocity from Dublin in that regard.
	Some element of cross membership may be beneficial and may help to melt the somewhat frozen attitudes that either end of the dialectical spectrum invariably characterise our debates on Northern Ireland. It is time that that the era of old men in bowler hats, collarettes and long johns is consigned to the museum of political history. For that reason the Liberal Democrats support the Commons amendment.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, at every opportunity in this House I have asked the question: who has asked for the Bill? Your Lordships' House has yet to hear an answer. It was not unreasonable to ask that because it is only when one knows who has asked for a Bill that one can have a reliable idea of how it will be used if it is passed.
	I noticed a significant distinction between the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on the Dome and on this Bill. Yesterday he was at great pains to point out that it was the Conservative Party which had asked for the Dome. The noble and learned Lord was perfectly entitled to do that. He did that on a number of occasions. Indeed, he did little else. No one can complain that the matter was irrelevant. It was highly relevant. It may not have carried the noble and learned Lord very far, but it was relevant.
	But when it comes to answering the same question about the Bill we do not get an answer. The nearest he came to giving an answer was to say to me that it is an inappropriate question. When that answer was first given there was such a guffaw from all sides of the House that one might have been back in the House of Commons.
	I do not easily make difficulties for the Government in their Northern Ireland policies. I have tried hard to be supportive of them. They have been right to try to build confidence. But where they have gone wrong here, if I may suggest it respectfully, is that they have failed to recognise how fragile unionist confidence now is. If the Bill is forced through without an answer to the question, "Who has asked for it?", it will be very bad for unionist confidence. That is a very serious matter.
	The only other explanation for the Bill was given by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, at Second Reading when he said that,
	"this surely is now the right time to extend this modest courtesy to the Irish Parliament".--[Official Report, 27/7/00; col.721.]
	I should like to suggest that it is now high time that a modest courtesy was extended to our own Parliament by giving an appropriate answer to the question I have put.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, as I listened to the "Today" programme this morning, the lady who reads the news--presumably she had a script in front of her--said that today in the House of Lords the Disqualifications Bill would be discussed, a Bill which would ensure that Sinn Fein would be able to sit both in the Irish Parliament and in the British Parliament. There you have it. The BBC knows what the Bill is about. I know what it is about. But there we had a national broadcast telling us what the Bill is all about. No one else in the political arena of the island of Ireland, North or South, has asked for the Bill.
	As I came into your Lordships' House, I heard that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, had made reference to me, saying that I was out of step with the SDLP. He is quite right. I left the SDLP five years before I became a Member of your Lordships' House. I left the SDLP because, as I said then, it was getting too close to extreme republicanism. That is why I left the SDLP. Had I agreed with the SDLP, I would have been expressing the same sentiments as it is expressing today.
	Throughout our debates on the Bill I have repeatedly posed the question, as have other noble Lords--the question was being asked in the other place today--"Who has asked for the Bill?" None of the major political parties in the Republic has asked for it. Fianna Fail, Fine Gael or the workers' party have not asked for it. Before I came into the House today I watched the proceedings in another place on television. I was hoping to see a member of the SDLP saying, "We want the Bill. We have asked for the Bill". Why is it that every time the Bill is discussed in the House of Commons, no SDLP Members are there? Is it because they are frightened of the Bill? Even more seriously, is it because they are frightened to say that they are frightened, as Sinn Fein is at the moment a very direct threat to the SDLP?
	The SDLP knows very well that none of its members will fight for a seat in the Dail. It knows very well that no one from Fianna Fail, Fine Gael or the other major parties will fight for a seat over here. Indeed, they could not fight for a seat over here because they would have to have a residence qualification. There is no reciprocation whatever. An Englishman sitting in the other place could not fight for a seat in the Republic because he has to be an Irish citizen to sit in the Dail. It seems that the traffic is all one way.
	As I watched on the monitor what was happening in the other place, it all became clear to me. On the previous occasion we discussed the Bill I was watching the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. He read every word of what he was telling the House. I watched George Howarth today. He read every word. My mind went back to the House of Commons, where I was an MP for many years. One of my close and dear friends, a man whom I revered, was Michael Foot. When Michael Foot stood at the Dispatch Box and read every word, we all knew that he did not believe in a word he was saying. I would say that to him later in the Corridors, and he would confirm it. The same thing is happening here.
	We have heard the argument about the Commonwealth. I do not believe that it is valid.
	Perhaps I may interject against myself and say that if there was not a single unionist or Protestant Member from Northern Ireland sitting in the House, I would say exactly the same things. I am not persuaded by any unionist or Protestant argument; I am persuaded by my conscience.
	Last week or the week before, I read the Irish newspapers after I had spoken in the House. An old friend of mine--an old-time journalist--commented on this House and referred to the unionists and the House taking an anti-Irish stance, as the House has reputedly done over many centuries, particularly in 1993. I am sorry that my former friend had to question my motives in speaking as I do in this House on this Bill. I am expressing honestly the concerns of many people in Northern Ireland, who see the traffic all going one way.
	I have a press report of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said in the House two or three weeks ago. It states:
	"He told Peers in the House of Lords last night that 2,804 people had been murdered in the province between 1969 and last month ...But charges had only been brought in respect of 958 murders ... There had been 1,860 civilians murdered (688 charges), 441 soldiers (106 charges), 300 members of the RUC (111 charges)".
	Those kinds of figures activate the minds of the people of Northern Ireland. It may only be a press report or a quote from Hansard, but that is not the way it affects people in Northern Ireland. I have often said that you could walk from the Belfast Telegraph office through Belfast's main street, Royal Avenue, at any time of the day, and you would be certain to walk past some of the people who have carried out those atrocious murders. That is what makes the people of Northern Ireland think as they do.
	As to the question of the Commonwealth, I heard again today that we must treat Ireland as we would any other part of the Commonwealth. As I have said, Ireland left the Commonwealth of its own volition in 1949. If we must treat Ireland as we would any other part of the Commonwealth, does that mean that we will allow a representative from Ireland to attend the next Commonwealth conference? That would be one way of treating Ireland as any other part of the Commonwealth. We all know that no one from the Commonwealth has ever attempted to take up what they have been permitted to do. If that had been the case, we could have Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe sitting here, or some of the other so-called parliamentarians of Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth argument does not hold water.
	I am opposing this Bill because of my total and absolute abhorrence of the men of violence in Northern Ireland. I have lived through the violence for many years. The IRA succeeded in burning my house and everything in it, including every memento that I had acquired throughout my married life. It did so because it could not intimidate me into agreeing with what it was doing, and it could not intimidate me into keeping quiet about what it was doing. I have no hesitation in saying what is my motivation: I deplore and detest every action of the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries, although it was the IRA who caused the damage to myself.
	Sinn Fein is, to use the jargon, inextricably linked with the IRA. If Sinn Fein were not tied to the IRA and acting as its political wing, I should have no hesitation in supporting the Bill. Sinn Fein could have within its ranks people who would make good public representatives and, indeed, good Ministers. It is because of its link to the men of violence that I oppose this measure.
	There is no doubt that something has happened behind the scenes. No one knows what is the motivation behind this obnoxious little Bill. Perhaps we shall know in 30 years' time when the papers are made available. The promulgation of this measure is an attack on democracy--not because of the wording, but because of the motivation behind it; because it has been demanded by Sinn Fein/IRA, which will be the only political party in Northern Ireland to gain from the Bill.
	I repeat: why did not the SDLP issue a public statement? Why did its members not stand up yesterday, or when the Bill received its Second Reading, and say that they supported it? That is difficult to understand. I heard the Minister say today that the Irish Government support the Bill. Why did no one in the Irish Government stand up in the Irish Parliament and say, "We are quite happy with the content of the little Bill that is going through Westminster. We find no objection to it"? No one has expressed support for it.
	I repeat my statement that the Bill has been demanded by Sinn Fein. It is inextricably linked to the men of violence who have carried out so many murders and wrecked so many lives in Northern Ireland. I cannot support anything that Sinn Fein demands.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and again I salute his courage. No one in this House speaks with greater authority on Northern Irish matters. I am sorry that I did not hear his intervention, but I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was "rolled out" once again yesterday as the "big gun" to give an obiter dictum on the propriety or otherwise of your Lordships rejecting the Government's NATS proposals yet again. The noble spoke of the importance of exercising our judgment rather than our full powers in that case. When he was challenged by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, he went on to make the distinction to which my noble friend Lord Cope alluded a moment ago.
	In that instance, I agreed wholeheartedly with the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Like him, I believe that the full exercise of our powers should be a "nuclear" option, used sparingly and if possible not at all. The noble Lord was right when he said (at col. 1329) that further resistance by your Lordships would be justified only,
	"if a major constitutional issue were at stake".
	The noble Lord knows, and has even been kind enough to acknowledge on the Floor of the House, that he and I have agreed on matters affecting your Lordships more often than some people outside the House might expect. I only hope that that agreement has not caused him too much embarrassment in his own party. Knowing the noble Lord, I am sure that it has not.
	In spite of the fact that I would go further than the noble Lord in wanting to see the powers of this House as a constitutional long-stop increased and even become enshrined in convention and possibly in statute, I am interested to find that the noble Lord has not yet been rolled out on this particular issue. Perhaps he is holding his fire. However, I understand why the noble Lord was rolled out: it was due to the respect and affection with which he is regarded on all sides of the Chamber, as a former leader of his party in this House and, indeed, as a former Leader of the House. It is absolutely right that he should talk about noble Lords exercising their judgment. I suspect that the noble Lord and I will find ourselves in separate Lobbies yet again this evening. I am sorry about that, because it seems to me that this is a case where noble Lords ought really to think seriously about exercising their judgment.
	We have heard this Bill variously described by members of the Government Front Bench in this House as either, "a mere piece of tidying up--rectifying an anomaly", or, by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as "a part of the choreography of the Good Friday agreement". If it is the former, it is a matter of minor importance to the Government. In that case, I have to ask: why are they so keen to promote it, and why have they agonised so much about the tactics used as it has been pushed through Parliament? But if it is the latter, as my noble friend Lord Cope and other speakers have said, it is a matter of major importance. If that is the case, why have not the Government come clean with Parliament in their explanations as regards what lies behind this Bill?
	Like other noble Lords who have spoken, this seems to me to be a thoroughly pernicious and dangerous piece of legislation. It endows Members of another place with a divided loyalty. I venture to remind your Lordships of a phrase of Queen Elizabeth I, which was used in another context; namely, that she did not like her dogs to wear foreign collars. I believe that that encapsulates why that is unwise for people who will be elected to what is still, at least in some instances, the sovereign Parliament of our country.
	This Bill panders to Sinn Fein/IRA's desire to be able to claim to represent parts of Northern Ireland in the Dail before the people of the Province have expressed a wish to leave the United Kingdom. In doing so, I fear that it will make the unification of Ireland more likely rather than less likely, because it will make it seem even more inevitable than many of the Government's activities thus far have made it seem.
	I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to allude to my following point when he concludes the debate on behalf of the Government. If my information is correct, this Bill was demanded by Sinn Fein/IRA with Mr Ahern, the Taoiseach, acting as an intermediary between them and our Prime Minister. As I understand it, it was demanded as a price for Mr Adams' silence in the wake of the five famous hand-written promises issued by our Prime Minister before the referendum on the Good Friday agreement took place--promises which, I should remind your Lordships, were not kept in the event.
	The question before us is both big and important. As your Lordships have pointed out, it is embodied in a nasty little Bill. We have always supported the bi-partisan policy on our side and, indeed, when in government, we were extremely grateful when the party opposite supported us in turn. However, I hope that noble Lords will agree that we have always made it plain that, should things go too far, we would withdraw our support. Indeed, it seems as though the bi-partisan policy is supporting something that, in particular, appeases terrorists more than appears to be remotely sensible.
	Even in its own terms, it seems to me that the Government's policy is not working. Indeed, within minutes of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill being passed by your Lordships' House, it was being flouted by Sinn-Fein/IRA. It is as if its members are laughing in the face of the Government by encouraging Roman Catholics in the Province not to join the police force, which was, of course, one of the principal reasons that the Government initially gave for introducing that legislation. In my opinion, this Bill is even worse. It appeases the terrorists; it will not persuade them any more than the police legislation did to throw away the Armalite in favour of the ballot box. I am in no doubt whatever that not only should noble Lords throw out the Bill again on its merits, but also, in view of the constitutional and radical nature of what is proposed, I suggest that they would be well within their rights to do so.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I have listened to many speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, on the subject of Northern Ireland. I think that he has used the expression "appease the terrorists" against the Government on several occasions and on several different measures. So there is nothing unique about the accusations that he made today.
	My noble friend Lord Fitt and I have been friends for many years. I have known him since he was in the Commons. I very much respect him as a person of integrity and as someone who has suffered from terrorism. I have been fortunate not to have suffered from terrorism although other Members of this House have so suffered. Anyone who has suffered directly from terrorism obviously speaks with more moral authority than those who have not. I think nevertheless that he will allow me to disagree with him on this occasion in the spirit of friendship which has always characterised our debates here and our friendly discussions outside.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, both said that the Bill is dangerous. They may disagree with the Bill. They may think that the Government have made an error of judgment. However, I believe that the word "dangerous" is an exaggeration in relation to a Bill the consequences of which will be much smaller than has been suggested.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that with the Bill on the statute book our Government have every right to say to the Government in Dublin that they should reciprocate and pass measures to grant the same rights to British people to seek to enter the Dail as will be granted the other way in this legislation. However, the bottom line is that Northern Ireland is different and the relationship between the British Government and the Irish Government is different from the relationship we have with any other government in the world. Northern Ireland is pivotal to that different relationship.
	There are all kinds of arrangements between the British Government and the Irish Government involving Northern Ireland which are quite different from the arrangements we have anywhere else; for example, the cross-border bodies, the north-south ministerial council, and so on. Therefore it is not that unusual that we should seek as a government to introduce a measure which is different from that which would in effect apply elsewhere. I understand that as regards the Commonwealth it would apply in the same way but it would have more bite as regards the relationship between this country and Ireland.
	My understanding is that the Government of the Republic support the Bill, the SDLP supports the Bill and Sinn Fein also supports the Bill. This is not just a matter of dealing with Sinn Fein. Indeed, I believe that the main effect of having this Bill on the statute book--

Lord Laird: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he join me and others in this spirit of friendship in encouraging the Irish Government to ensure that they implement fully the Belfast agreement, applying human rights to the same standards that apply in our country to those people who are discriminated against on religious and political grounds in the Irish Republic? Will the noble Lord join me in that call to the Irish Government?

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I certainly will. I certainly call all the people who are parties to the Good Friday agreement to adhere to all elements of that agreement, be it opposition to discrimination, support of human rights or whatever. I gave that assurance at the Dispatch Box when I was a Northern Ireland Minister and I am happy to repeat it. I am happy to discuss the details of the matter with the noble Lord at any time in the friendly spirit which characterises our discussions.
	The main effect of the Bill would be that a Member of Parliament representing a Northern Ireland constituency would be active in the Irish Parliament, in the Senate in Dublin rather than in the Dail. It is much more likely that Seamus Mallon or Gerry Adams would find a place in the Senate. Therefore they would not represent a constituency in the traditional sense in which Members of the House of Commons represent their constituencies.
	I do not believe that that is such an untoward outcome. If it helps in the peace process, if it helps in better relationships between the British Government and the Irish Government but, above all, if it contributes to peace in Northern Ireland, I think that it is not a bad thing.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in his total condemnation of terrorist violence. There is no justification for it and the guiding principle of this Government has been to counter the incidence of paramilitarism in every form and at every point. The people who support the Bill--the Irish Government, the British Government, the SDLP and the Women's Coalition--would not agree with the characterisation that this in any way promotes violence.
	This Bill removes a disqualification for membership of the House of Commons. It is a Bill which the House of Commons has just passed, having put back Clause 1 by a substantial majority. It was not and could not have been in the manifesto because it is a product in part of the consequences of the Belfast agreement and the improving relationship between the British and Irish Governments. Both the Irish Government and the British Government believe that it would contribute to the peace process. They believe that it assists the relationship between the two governments which the governments believe are a substantial foundation for the improved relationships which have led to the continuation of the peace process.
	That is a judgment that has been made by the British Government. It is a judgment that has been made by the Irish Government after very considerable thought and consideration of the issue. The Bill would allow Members of the Dail to sit in the House of Commons, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the other assemblies or parliaments in this country. The electorate would be able to decide for themselves whether they are prepared to countenance a Member who is or might be also a Member of the Dail.
	I respectfully ask Members of this House to consider carefully the fact that the peace process is a matter where delicate judgments have to be made. Those are judgments which have to be made in part by the British and Irish Governments. They have made a judgment that this modest measure helps. I suggest that it would be wrong for this House to override that judgment.
	Finally, in another place, my honourable friend Mr Howarth, the Under-Secretary of State, undertook to raise with the Irish Government the issue of reciprocity; that is, removing the requirement of Irish citizenship which is a requirement for membership of the Dail. I ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we support the Belfast agreement, the British/Irish agreement and the cross-Border bodies to which agreement has given rise. The existence of those cross-Border bodies makes this Bill less necessary. They provide for the co-operation which has been spoken about.
	The noble and learned Lord spoke a moment ago of this Bill as a consequence of the Belfast agreement. I remind noble Lords that the Belfast agreement was hammered out between the parties involved, line by line and word by word over agonising weeks and days, eventually through Maundy Thursday into Good Friday. Every word was carefully weighed; and this measure was not a proposal on the table let alone in the agreement at that time.
	We are told that we should accept it in the interests of good will between ourselves and the Irish although, as the noble and learned Lord said in his opening speech, we have our separate interests. Of course we want good will. But we were told a few days ago that if we passed the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill we would see better co-operation. Not only has that not materialised, the measure has so far been rejected.
	We still believe that the Bill has great dangers. I was standing by to deal with new points from the Government's side but there were none. No new points have been raised. I wish, therefore, to press the amendment and seek the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1B) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 138; Not-Contents, 158.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I am in some difficulty. The other place is still discussing the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill and we have to await the Message that it has accepted the Lords amendments. The best I can do is to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure to await a Message from the Commons. We shall then display on the annunciator screens the time at which we expect to receive that Message. I believe I am correct in stating that once we have received it, I can then adjourn the House to await Prorogation.

Lord Henley: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves that Motion, I wonder whether he can give the House some idea as to when he thinks the other place might be sending forward the amendments. Could he suggest that we adjourn for two hours, three hours or whatever and then come back and let us know?

Lord Carter: My Lords, I think it would be safer to adjourn for the moment during pleasure so that I can find out what is happening. The procedure in the other place is not nearly as well whipped as ours! The debate on the Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill is taking longer than we expected. I believe that a number of Conservative Members are taking a particular interest in it. There is also a Business of the House Motion and another matter to be dealt with. Rather than adjourn for two or three hours and then find that we could come back at 7 p.m., it would be easier to adjourn during pleasure. The moment we are able to place a time on the annunciator screens, we shall do so.

Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip is a member of the Government. Therefore, we presume that he has some idea of what his colleagues are doing in another place.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Henley: No, my Lords, I am serious. The Government have total control over their business in another place. They seem to be issuing guillotines every day, night and day. Can the noble Lord give us further advice as to when we might come back? There is no point in saying one hour or two hours. I cannot say. It is up to the Government, who control the other place, to say when we might come back. Can the noble Lord assist us?

Lord Carter: No, my Lords, I cannot. It is as simple as that. I understand that there is not a timetabled Motion on the Bill which is being discussed. That has to be completed in order for a Message to be sent, and I understand that it is open ended. I assure noble Lords that it would be simpler to adjourn the House during pleasure while we await a Message from the Commons. The moment we know that we will receive that Message, we can come together, receive it and adjourn for prorogation.

Lord Henley: My Lords, how will we know when we are coming back? Would it not be better if the noble Lord said that that would be at least one hour?

Lord Carter: My Lords, if it is easier, I can adjourn the House for one hour. If we find that we could have returned at 6.15 p.m., I think that the House will be cross. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 6.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 5.49 to 6.30 p.m.]

Lord Carter: My Lords, I am reliably informed that the other place will be able to send us a message at 7 o'clock on the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. At that time I shall be able to tell the House at what time we will prorogue.
	I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[House adjourned during pleasure from 6.31 to 7 p.m.]

Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.30 p.m. for the Royal Commission.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 7.1 to 7.30 p.m.]

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Royal Commission

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, it not being convenient for Her Majesty personally to be present here this day, she has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared for proroguing this present Parliament.
	Then, the Lords Commissioners (being the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington), the Lord Marsh, the Lord Strathcylde and the Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank) being present and the Commons being at the Bar, the Lord Chancellor said: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, Her Majesty, not thinking fit personally to be present here at this time, has been pleased to cause a Commission to be issued under the Great Seal, and thereby given Her Royal Assent to divers Acts, the Titles whereof are particularly mentioned, and by the said Commission has commanded us to declare and notify Her Royal Assent to the said several Acts, in the presence of you the Lords and Commons assembled for that purpose; and has also assigned to us and other Lords directed full power and authority in Her Majesty's name to prorogue this present Parliament. Which Commission you will now hear read.
	A Commission for Royal Assent and Prorogation was read.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, and by virtue of the Commission which has been now read, We do declare and notify to you, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, that Her Majesty has given Her Royal Assent to the several Acts in the Commission mentioned; and the Clerks are required to pass the same in the usual Form and Words.

Royal Assent

The following Acts received the Royal Assent:
	Race Relations (Amendment) Act,
	Children (Leaving Care) Act,
	Freedom of Information Act,
	Countryside and Rights of Way Act,
	Transport Act,
	Insolvency Act,
	Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act,
	Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act,
	Disqualifications Act,
	Criminal Justice and Court Services Act,
	Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act.

Prorogation: Her Majesty's Speech

Her Majesty's most gracious Speech was then delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command) as follows:

The Queen: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	My Government have taken action to secure economic stability and steady growth, based on their long-term objectives for monetary and fiscal policy. The goal is high and stable levels of growth and employment. My Government have sought to secure the conditions which enable them to increase investment in public services.
	Improving education continues to be my Government's highest priority. An Act has been passed to establish a new Learning and Skills Council to secure high standards for post-16 education and training and a new emphasis on securing skills needed in the economy.
	Legislation has been passed to improve health and social care, reforming the system for protection of vulnerable people.
	My Government have published an NHS Plan, setting out a programme of investment and reform for the health service. The plan will redesign NHS services to focus on the needs of patients, and will be supported by a sustained increase in NHS funding.
	To ensure high levels of employment, my Government are continuing the New Deal to help more young people and the long-term unemployed, and announced the creation of a new Working Age agency to continue the progress made on developing Welfare to Work policies.
	My Government are continually looking for ways to improve productivity, including in the public sector. The spending plans announced in July were accompanied by Public Service Agreements setting out targets for service improvement. An Act has been passed to introduce the latest accounting methods in Whitehall.
	My Government are committed to delivering a competitive and well-regulated economy. An Act has been passed which reforms the regulatory framework for the gas and electricity sectors in England and Wales. Legislation has been enacted to transform the Post Office into a plc owned by the Government. Legislation has also been passed to improve the regulation of financial services and markets, establishing the Financial Services Authority as the single statutory regulator.
	An Act has been passed to remove legal barriers and create a framework of trust to make it easier for commercial transactions and government services to take place electronically.
	An Act has been passed to reform the child support system. It also reforms the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme through the introduction of a State Second Pension and provides for the withdrawal of benefits from offenders who fail to complete community sentences.
	Measures have been put forward to reduce crime. An Act has been passed to improve the protection of children from violent and sex offenders and to strengthen community sentences. Legislation has been enacted to provide new powers for the police and courts to tackle disorder connected with football matches.
	An Act has been passed to put in place permanent UK-wide legislation against terrorism. Legislation has also been passed to update and regulate law enforcement capabilities to address changes in technology and the introduction of the Human Rights Act.
	An Act has been passed which fulfils my Government's promise to legislate on a range of transport issues. This reforms air traffic control, railways and local transport services. My Government have published a 10-year plan for the modernisation of the country's transport system.
	My Government have continued their plans for the reform of local government. An Act has been passed to improve its accountability and innovation.
	An Act has been passed to give the public a new right of access to open countryside. It also improves the law on rights of way and the management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and strengthens the enforcement of wildlife law.
	My Government have continued their programme of constitutional reform. Legislation has been enacted which will give the public a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities.
	An Act has been passed to regulate the funding of political parties and campaign expenditure and to ensure the fair conduct of referendums.
	My Government are determined to improve equality of opportunity. An Act has been passed outlawing race discrimination in certain public functions and placing a duty on specified public authorities to promote race equality.
	My Government have continued to co-operate with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the interests of all the people of the United Kingdom.
	In Northern Ireland my Government have worked closely with the Irish Government to secure full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. They have fulfilled their commitment to transfer powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly in accordance with the wishes of the people as expressed in a referendum.
	An Act has been passed to implement recommendations of the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland. My Government will continue to implement other parts of the Good Friday agreement within their responsibility.
	Members of the House of Commons,
	I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the State Visit of Her Majesty Queen Margrethe of Denmark and Prince Henrik in February.
	We recall with pleasure our Visit to Australia in March. Similarly we were delighted to pay a State Visit to Italy and a Visit to the Holy See in October.
	My Government have continued to take a leading role in the European Union. The Special European Council in Lisbon signalled new developments in Europe's approach to economic and social reform.
	Preparing for enlargement is a challenge for the European Union, and my Government are playing a key role. My Government have worked for practical measures to strengthen the European Union's foreign and security policy and continue to work with our allies to strengthen and modernise NATO.
	My Government have made a large political, military and financial commitment to build peace and stability in the Balkans. They have played a leading role in helping to rebuild Kosovo.
	My Government have taken decisive action in support of the UN operation in Sierra Leone, and continued to support the UN in bringing self-determination to the people of East Timor.
	In the G8 and other forums my Government have taken a leading role in tackling issues of poverty eradication, debt relief and the causes of conflict.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has been now read We do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to the 6th day of December, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday, the 6th day of December next.
	Parliament was prorogued at one minute before eight o'clock.